I hope the title is a two-sided attempt at humor. Certainly I get so frustrated at some of the looniness spouted by both extremes on the climate spectrum that I wonder if I am still sane. Certainly I wonder if people like Eli Rabett or Ted Cruz have lost all their marbles.
In Time today, Cruz is quoted as saying ““If you look at satellite data for the last 18 years, there’s been zero recorded warming,” Cruz said in California’s Orange County. “The satellite says it ain’t happening.” Instead, Cruz said, government researchers are reverse engineering data sets to falsify changes in the climate. “They’re cooking the books. They’re actually adjusting the numbers,” Cruz said. “Enron used to do their books the same way.”
You might see something like that appear 200 comments down on a thread at Judith Curry’s fine weblog–there are some skeptics who think that 18 years is enough to prove warming either never happened or is finished. But for a candidate for the U.S. presidency to spout off nonsense like this is truly astonishing.
(For the record, we have had two similar pauses that lasted similar lengths of time in the past century, after which warming resumed. The physics functions. As for the adjustments, even skeptics eventually understand that when you measure temperatures in the morning for 50 years and then start measuring in the evenings–or vice versa–if you don’t adjust to account for it you will end up with bad numbers.)
It’s a crazy thing to say.
So too are two separate comments from Eli Rabett, host of the Rabett Run website.
The first is a comment he made here at The Lukewarmer’s Way where he flat out lied about economist Tim Worstall, linking him to economists listed as having worked for the tobacco industry. Worstall not only has not worked for the tobacco industry, his name isn’t even on the list Rabett linked to.
It’s crazy to tell a lie that’s so easy to spot.
Second, over at his site he compares Andrew Revkin to skeptic Sky Dragon aficionados, part of a long-running campaign to undercut Revkin in the same way Rabett, Tobis, ATTP and others have tried to undercut Bjorn Lomborg, Roger Pielke Sr. and Judith Curry.
Rabett claims that reviewing a paper is ‘a matter of ethics’, surprising all of us who felt that reviewing a scientific paper was well, a matter of science. He’s pissed at Revkin for submitting a comment on Hansen’s latest ‘what if’ excursion. Revkin noted two scientific papers that flew in the face of some of Hansen’s latest claims. Apparently noting that the Godfather of Green might be in error is tantamount to heresy.
Despite the fact that the same thing has happened to environmental journalists Mark Lynas and George Monbiot, both of whom like Revkin have been stalwart supporters of the climate cause until all of a sudden they actually reported something in opposition to the party line, the idea of trashing journalists who have supported your cause for years is, well, crazy.
Revkin is a top-notch j0urnalist. He doesn’t deserve to be treated this way.